NASDAQ: PMVP

A better understanding of mutations that drive cancers has facilitated the development of precise, gene- and protein-specific drugs known as targeted therapies. Targeted therapies have the potential to transform the treatment of some cancers by providing robust clinical benefit to patients. In many cases, clinical responses can be dramatic enough to support expedited regulatory approval of these therapies. Further, recent advancements in next-generation-sequencing, or NGS, have accelerated the development of targeted therapies. A recent study found that 75% of oncologists in the United States employ genomic sequencing. We believe p53 mutations are particularly well-suited for the evolving precision oncology paradigm, as a single mutation can cause p53 malfunction, and p53 is one of the genes commonly sequenced in NGS panels. We believe that our precision oncology platform offers a substantial opportunity to expand the number of patients who will benefit from targeted therapies.

Rezatapopt and Pipeline

We are leveraging our precision oncology platform to develop a pipeline of orally available, potent and highly selective small molecule product candidates that target p53 mutations or other p53-related cancers.

1

An overview of our development pipeline is shown in the table below.

(1)
In Discovery, we screen compounds against biological assays to identify lead compounds.

(2)
In Lead Optimization, we modify the lead compound to improve potency, selectivity, pharmacokinetic and toxicity parameters and physical chemical properties important for clinical development.

(3)
In IND-Enabling Studies, we conduct preclinical studies, in accordance with Good Laboratory Practice, or GLP, required for an IND submission to the FDA.

Our lead product candidate, rezatapopt, is designed to be an orally available small molecule that structurally corrects the mutant p53 protein with the Y220C mutation. The p53 Y220C mutation results from tyrosine being substituted by a cysteine at amino acid position 220 and is associated with approximately 1% of all cancers, including endometrial, breast, NSCLC, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers. In addition, the p53 Y220C mutation is found in approximately 3% of ovarian cancer cases. There are currently no products approved by the FDA that selectively target the p53 Y220C mutation.

Rezatapopt is designed to bind to the mutation site and structurally correct the misfolded p53 protein, while sparing wild-type p53. Our approach has yielded a highly selective product candidate, which we believe can maximize the potential therapeutic potency and minimize risk to normal functioning cells. In preclinical studies, rezatapopt has shown selective on-target activity (i.e., primarily functions in cells with the p53 Y220C mutation) and exhibited robust anti-tumor activity evidenced by potent tumor growth inhibition, or TGI, and strong tumor regression as a single agent.

We initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial, PYNNACLE, in October 2020 for our lead product candidate, rezatapopt. Our strategy is to seek approval under an accelerated pathway, and we believe the Phase 2 portion of the PYNNACLE clinical trial has the potential to serve as a pivotal study. In October 2020, we were granted FDA Fast Track designation of rezatapopt for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors that have a p53 Y220C mutation. In July 2023, we met with the FDA at an End of Phase 1 meeting where alignment was obtained on the recommended Phase 2 dose and key elements of the single arm, Phase 2 registrational portion of the PYNNACLE study. In October 2023, we presented our updated Phase 1 clinical data for rezatapopt at the 2023 AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics Annual Meeting. We dosed our first patient in the pivotal Phase 2 monotherapy portion of the PYNNACLE study in the first quarter of 2024. In September 2025, we announced interim data from the Phase 2 pivotal portion of the PYNNACLE clinical trial, which was updated in October 2025 in a late-breaking oral presentation and poster presentation at the 2025 AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics Meeting. In March 2026, rezatapopt was granted ODD from the FDA for the

2

treatment of TP53 Y220C positive ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer. We plan to submit an NDA for the treatment of patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer harboring a TP53 Y220C mutation to the FDA for rezatapopt in the first quarter of 2027.

Our Strategy

Our vision is to become a leading precision oncology company by designing, developing and commercializing novel precision medicines for every patient with a p53-driven tumor. We believe we are well positioned to leverage our deep experience in p53 biology, precision oncology platform and foundational knowledge acquired through our lead program to bring these therapies to patients. The critical components of our strategy include:

•
Advancing our lead product candidate, rezatapopt, as a tumor-agnostic, oral small molecule therapy for cancer patients. We have designed rezatapopt to be an orally available, tumor-agnostic therapeutic and, if approved, we believe it could become the first agent to address the p53 Y220C mutation-defined patient population. In October 2020, we initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial for rezatapopt in multiple solid tumors with the p53 Y220C mutation. We are conducting our clinical trials in this genomically-defined patient population and leveraging learnings from recently approved tumor-agnostic drugs to inform the clinical and regulatory pathways for rezatapopt. In October 2023, we presented our Phase 1 clinical data for rezatapopt and observed partial responses across multiple tumor types. The pivotal Phase 2 monotherapy portion of our PYNNACLE trial was initiated in the first quarter of 2024. In September 2025, we announced interim data from the Phase 2 pivotal portion of the PYNNACLE clinical trial, which was updated in October 2025 in a late-breaking oral presentation and poster presentation at the 2025 AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics Meeting. We plan to submit an NDA for the treatment of patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer harboring a TP53 Y220C mutation to the FDA for rezatapopt in the first quarter of 2027.

•
Leveraging the advantages of precision medicine and our expertise in p53 biology to pursue accelerated approval of our product candidates. For our lead product candidate, rezatapopt, we are actively working with physicians and leading clinical trial institutions to enroll patients with the p53 Y220C mutation identified via NGS in our Phase 2 clinical trial. In order to rapidly confirm mechanistic and clinical proof of concept, we utilize assays to measure target engagement and biomarkers, as well as assess clinical responses in patients. We expect this strategy, which we also plan to replicate for our other future product candidates, will enable a rapid determination of target engagement and has the potential to serve as a predictive marker of efficacy, thereby providing clear decision points for clinical development and efficient advancement of our product candidates towards approval. Based on our encouraging PYNNACLE clinical trial results, we plan to seek breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA for rezatapopt, which, if granted, is intended to expedite clinical development and regulatory review. We intend to maximize the benefit of our product candidates by pursuing a tumor-agnostic approach.

•
Identifying and exploring combination therapy approaches for our product candidates. Though rezatapopt has demonstrated clear and robust tumor regression as a single agent in preclinical animal models and clinical proof of concept, we believe that the mechanism of correcting the structure of mutant p53 can be complementary to other oncology therapies. Leveraging our expertise in p53 biology, chemistry and cancer pharmacology, we plan to identify and explore combination strategies with multiple cancer therapies. For example, chemotherapy and radiation therapy, approaches that result in deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, damage and upregulate p53 are natural candidates for combining with our product candidates. In addition, we believe that p53 plays a role in influencing the tumor microenvironment. Therefore, bevacizumab, pan-KRAS inhibitors, PI3K inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors could also be considered as potential combination agents for use with our product candidates. We believe that our unique expertise will enable us to prioritize therapeutic strategies and optimize outcomes for clinical studies.

•
Harnessing the power of our precision oncology platform to discover and develop additional differentiated product candidates. Using our extensive in-house expertise, deep understanding of chemistry and decades of experience researching the p53 protein, we believe that we will be able to

3

leverage and apply foundational knowledge from the advancement of rezatapopt to the discovery and development of additional product candidates.

Background on Targeted Therapies

Cancer is a genomic disease that results from changes in a person’s DNA that causes cells to grow and divide uncontrollably. Genes are the distinct segments in a cell’s DNA that can encode proteins with structural or functional roles in the body. Alterations in some genes can lead to the expression of mutant proteins with impaired or abnormal functions that can cause cancer. Cancer has historically been both diagnosed and treated based on a tumor’s organ site, such as the breast, lung, ovary, brain, pancreas, skin, bone or blood.

Recent advances in genomic sequencing and a better understanding of the genomic alterations that drive tumor development and growth have facilitated precise, gene and protein-specific drug development, known as targeted therapies. Targeted therapies have the potential to transform the treatment of some cancers by providing robust clinical benefit to patients. In notable cases, the clinical outcomes have been dramatic enough to support expedited regulatory approval of these therapies. For example, Retevmo in RET-altered NSCLC and thyroid cancers (Lilly/Loxo); Ayvakit, in platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 mutated advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor, or GIST (Blueprint); Rozlytrek, in solid tumors with a neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase, or NTRK, gene fusion (Roche); Vitrakvi, in solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion (Bayer/Loxo); Zykadia, in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive, or ALK+, advanced NSCLC (Novartis); Zelboraf, in advanced melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation (Roche Genentech); Xalkori, in ALK+ advanced NSCLC (Pfizer); Tagrisso, in epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive, or EGFR+, advanced NSCLC (AstraZeneca); Qinlock, in GIST (Ono/Deciphera); Krazati and Lumakras in KRAS G12C mutated NSCLC (BMS/Mirati and Amgen); Augtyro in ROS1 positive NSCLC tumors (BMS/Turning Point); and Bizengri in NSCLC and pancreatic tumors with a NRG1-positive gene fusion (Merus) all received approvals within five years of first dosing in humans. This time period is significantly reduced compared to conventional drug development timelines. Despite this progress, a recent analysis found that only 16% of patients with metastatic cancer have tumors with genomic profiles eligible for treatment with an approved targeted agent, which leaves a large opportunity for precision oncology.

There is an emerging change in the development of targeted therapies, in that cancer is increasingly being targeted through a tumor-agnostic approach with a focus on selectively targeting a genetic or protein mutation, irrespective of tumor type. For example, there are now multiple tumor-agnostic product approvals that are based on a genomic mutation that defines the disease, as opposed to the tumor type. These include the aforementioned Vitrakvi, Rozlytrek and Augtyro approvals in NTRK gene fusion-positive solid tumors, as well as KEYTRUDA and Jemperli, respectively, approval in metastatic microsatellite instability-high or deficient mismatch repair solid tumors. KEYTRUDA is also approved in tumor mutational burden-high-(TMB-H) solid tumors. In addition, the combination of Taflinar and Mekinist was approved for BRAF V600E mutation positive unresectable or metastatic solid tumors (with the exception of colorectal cancer). In addition, Retevmo was approved for RET gene fusion-positive solid tumors and Enhertu was approved for HER2-Positive (IHC 3+) unresectable or metastatic solid tumors. We believe that these approvals represent a fundamental shift in the development of targeted therapies and will increasingly lead to cancer being characterized for treatment in a genomic, rather than in a tumor-specific, manner, based on a biological rationale.

The widespread recognition that cancer is a genomic disease, as much as it is a disease defined by histology or anatomical location, has driven the increased use of genomic sequencing, which is now employed by approximately 75% of oncologists in the United States. As DNA sequencing technology advances, the availability of well-defined genomic sequencing tests increases. With the increasing number of approved targeted therapies, we believe that physicians will seek a better understanding of the underlying genetic and protein abnormalities associated with a specific type of cancer in order to determine the optimal course of treatment. Advances in genomic sequencing are leading to transformations in the discovery and development of new targeted oncology drugs.

We believe p53 mutations are prime targets for precision oncology, as more than 50% of all human cancers contain a p53 mutation. Identifying the specific p53 gene mutation and structurally correcting the corresponding mutant p53 protein can potentially serve as a basis of treatment for these cancers. Diagnostic tests are currently used by physicians in their practice to identify patients with p53 mutations. Given the high prevalence of p53 mutations in cancers, we believe that an effective way to address p53-driven cancers is by targeting individual p53 mutations

4

using a precision oncology approach and significantly expanding the scope of patients who can benefit from targeted therapies.

Our Product Candidate and Development Programs

We are leveraging our precision oncology platform to develop a pipeline of oral small molecule product candidates. We own worldwide commercial rights to all of our programs. An overview of our development pipeline is shown in the table below.

(1)
In Discovery, we screen compounds against biological assays to identify lead compounds.

(2)
In Lead Optimization, we modify the lead compound to improve potency, selectivity, pharmacokinetic and toxicity parameters and physical chemical properties important for clinical development.

(3)
In IND-Enabling Studies, we conduct preclinical studies, in accordance with GLP required for an IND submission to the FDA.

We expect to initially seek approval of our product candidates in most instances, including with rezatapopt, at least as a second line therapy or for patients with no satisfactory alternative treatments or where the cancer has progressed following other treatment. Subsequently, depending on the nature of the clinical data and experience with any approved products or product candidates, if any, we may pursue approval as an earlier line therapy and potentially as a first line therapy. Cancer therapies are sometimes characterized as first line, second line or third line, and the FDA customarily approves new therapies for a second line or later lines of use. When cancer is detected early enough, first line therapy is sometimes adequate to cure the cancer or prolong life without a cure. Whenever first line therapies, usually chemotherapy, antibody drugs, tumor-targeted small molecules, hormone therapy, radiation therapy, surgery or a combination of these, proves unsuccessful, second line therapies may be administered. Second line therapies often consist of more chemotherapy, radiation, antibody drugs, tumor-targeted small molecules, or a combination of these. Third line therapies can include chemotherapy, antibody drugs and small molecule tumor-targeted therapies, more invasive forms of surgery and new technologies.

Rezatapopt: A Selective Structural Corrector of p53 Y220C Mutations

5

P53 is the most widely mutated gene in human cancers. The vast majority of these mutations occur as a result of missense mutations that are found in the DNA binding domain. P53 Y220C mutations are found in approximately 1% of all cancers and approximately 3% of ovarian cancers. This particular mutation is expressed in a large variety of solid tumors, including endometrial, breast, NSCLC, colorectal and pancreatic cancers. Our lead product candidate, rezatapopt, is designed to be an orally available small molecule that structurally corrects a p53 protein containing the Y220C mutation and restores wild-type p53 function.

Wild-type p53 in a normal cell is at low to undetectable levels, but an external insult such as UV radiation or exposure to a carcinogen results in activation and upregulation of the protein. In these instances, wild-type p53 pauses the cell-cycle to survey the integrity of the genome, and if the damage to the genome cannot be repaired, wild-type p53 induces a potent program of cell suicide or programed cell death. Given wild-type p53’s profound ability to induce cell death, it is tightly regulated in normal biology by an auto-regulatory loop with MDM2, a downstream induced target of wild-type p53 transcriptional activation. MDM2 production results in degradation of the wild-type p53 protein and re-sets the cell to normal function.

In the case of a mutant p53, there is a loss of p53 wild-type tumor suppression function due to a loss of downstream wild-type p53 transcriptional activation, including MDM2 induction. A consequence of this dysregulation is the inability of the cancer cell to degrade mutant forms of p53, resulting in a profound accumulation of mutant p53 protein in the cancer cell.

While treatment options such as surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and immuno-therapy are available for endometrial, breast, NSCLC, colorectal, pancreatic and ovarian cancer, there are no approved precision oncology therapies for the subset of patients with the p53 Y220C mutation. The availability of an oral small molecule selective for the p53 Y220C mutation may offer a novel precision therapy for this population, which we believe could potentially change the treatment paradigm for such patients.

Clinical Development Plan of Rezatapopt

We initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial, PYNNACLE, for rezatapopt in October 2020. In addition, we were granted FDA Fast Track designation of rezatapopt for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors with a p53 Y220C mutation in October 2020. We dosed our first patient in this clinical trial in the fourth quarter of 2020.

In July 2023, we concluded our End of Phase 1 meeting with the FDA with alignment on the recommended Phase 2 dose and key elements of the single arm, Phase 2 registrational portion of the PYNNACLE study. In October 2023, we presented our updated Phase 1 clinical data for rezatapopt at the 2023 AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics Meeting. We dosed our first patient in the pivotal Phase 2 monotherapy portion of the PYNNACLE study in the first quarter of 2024. In September 2025, we announced interim data from the Phase 2 pivotal portion of the PYNNACLE clinical trial, which was updated in October 2025 in a late-breaking oral presentation and poster presentation at the 2025 AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics Meeting.

The updated Phase 2 data, as of a September 4, 2025 data cutoff date, included efficacy population consisting of 103 patients treated with at least one dose of rezatapopt 2000 mg daily, who either had one or more post-baseline tumor assessment or discontinued treatment early. Confirmed responses were observed in patients whose tumors were p53 Y220C mutated and KRAS wild-type in eight tumor types, including ovarian, lung, breast, endometrial, head and neck, colorectal, gallbladder, and ampullary carcinoma. These efficacy evaluable patients had an overall response rate (ORR) of 34% (35/103 patients) per investigator assessment according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, including confirmed and unconfirmed responses, and the ovarian cancer cohort ORR was 46% ORR (22/48 patients, including one confirmed complete response, 18 confirmed partial responses, and three unconfirmed partial responses). Across all cohorts, the median time to response was 1.3 months and median duration of response was 7.6 months. In the ovarian cancer cohort, the median time to response was 1.3 months and median duration of response was 8.0 months.

6

Rezatapopt was observed to be generally well-tolerated (across 112 patients treated with rezatapopt monotherapy as of September 4, 2025). The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate (Grade 1 or 2) in severity with the most frequent adverse events being nausea, vomiting, aspartate transaminase, or AST, alanine transaminase, or ALT, increase, anemia, blood creatinine increase and fatigue.

Other Pipeline Programs

In addition to our rezatapopt program, we are focused on developing a pipeline of product candidates targeting other p53 mutations or p53-related targets. These programs have been developed using our precision oncology platform and expertise.

We are able to utilize the same general principles and similar drug discovery methods developed from our rezatapopt, p53 Y220C, program to facilitate the development of additional new product candidates. We study the structural and functional properties of the target. We use assays, screens, preclinical model systems and biomarkers to assess and optimize selective small molecules. By leveraging our team’s depth of expertise around p53, we are positioned to accelerate our efforts to expand the pipeline of therapies that target p53 or other p53-related cancers.

Competition

Our industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change, as well as strong defense of intellectual property. While we believe that our knowledge, experience, and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face substantial competition from major pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical, and human resources. Smaller and early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. As a result, our competitors may discover, develop, license, or commercialize products before or more successfully than we do.

We are a precision oncology company pioneering the discovery and development of small molecule therapies targeting p53 mutations and other p53-related cancers. We are aware of other product candidates that are

7

in clinical development as potential treatments of various cancers through the modulation of p53. We are aware of molecules in development that also are being explored for p53 upregulation/activation in various stages of preclinical or clinical development being tested by Jacobio Pharmaceuticals, Changchun GeneScience, Frontier Medicines and Nutshell Therapeutics, among others.

We face competition with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to future product candidates, from segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that pursue targeted therapies for patients with genomically-defined cancers. If rezatapopt or our future product candidates do not offer sustainable advantages over competing products, we may otherwise not be able to successfully compete against current and future competitors.

Our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we may or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used and less costly or have a better safety profile than our products and these competitors may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products.

In addition, we will likely need to develop our product candidates in collaboration with companion diagnostic companies, and we will face competition from other companies in establishing these collaborations. Our competitors will also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Furthermore, we also face competition more broadly across the market for cost-effective and reimbursable cancer treatments. The most common methods of treating patients with cancer are surgery, radiation and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted drug therapy or a combination of such methods. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. While our product candidates, if any are approved, may compete with these existing drug and other therapies, to the extent they are ultimately used in combination with or as an adjunct to these therapies, our product candidates may not be competitive with them. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. We expect that if our product candidates are approved, they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic, including branded generic, products. As a result, obtaining market acceptance of, and gaining significant share of the market for, any of our product candidates that we successfully introduce to the market will pose challenges. In addition, many companies are developing new therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will be as our product candidates progress through clinical development.

Manufacturing

We do not have any manufacturing facilities or personnel. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates undergoing preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture if our product candidates receive marketing approval.

All of our product candidates are small molecules manufactured by synthetic processes from readily available starting materials. The chemistry appears amenable to scale up and does not currently require unusual equipment in the manufacturing process. We expect to continue to develop product candidates that can be produced cost-effectively at contract manufacturing facilities.

We generally expect to rely on third parties for the manufacture of companion diagnostics for our products, which are assays or tests to identify an appropriate patient population. Depending on the technology solutions we choose, we may rely on multiple third parties to manufacture and sell a single test. In May 2024, we entered into a partnership with Foundation Medicine, Inc. to develop Foundation Medicine’s tissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling test, FoundationOne®CDx, as a companion diagnostic for rezatapopt. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject

8

to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, requirements, which impose certain production, manufacturing, procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP requirements and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP requirements and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

Commercialization

Subject to receiving marketing approvals, we expect to commence commercialization activities by building a focused sales and marketing organization to sell our products. We believe that such an organization will be able to address the community of oncologists who are the key specialists in treating the patient populations for which our product candidates are being developed.

We also plan to build a marketing and sales management organization to create and implement marketing strategies for any products that we market through our own sales organization and to oversee and support our sales force. The responsibilities of the marketing organization would include developing educational initiatives with respect to approved products and establishing relationships with researchers and practitioners in relevant fields of medicine.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to our business, including seeking, maintaining and defending patent rights. We also rely on know-how relating to our proprietary technology and product candidates and continuing innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position. We also plan to rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions when available. Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our technology, inventions and improvements; to defend and enforce our proprietary rights, including any patents that we may own in the future; and to operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. Intellectual property rights may not address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

With respect to our existing and future product candidates and processes we intend to develop and commercialize in the normal course of business, we intend to pursue further patent protection covering, when possible, compositions, methods of use, dosing and formulations. We also may pursue patent protection with respect to manufacturing and drug development processes and technologies. Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies. We may not be able to obtain patent protections for our compositions, methods of use, dosing and formulations, manufacturing and drug development processes and technologies throughout the world. Issued patents can provide protection for varying periods of time, depending upon the date of filing of the patent application, the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In general, patents issued for applications filed in the United States can provide exclusionary rights for 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. In addition, in certain instances, the term of an issued U.S. patent that is directed to or claims an FDA-approved product can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period. This process is called “patent term extension.” The restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term, including the restoration period, must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The term of patents outside of the United States varies in accordance with the laws of the foreign jurisdiction, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. Patent term may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our products for an adequate amount of time.

9

The patent positions of companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. No consistent policy regarding the scope of claims allowable in patents in the field of biopharmaceuticals has emerged in the United States. The relevant patent laws and their interpretation outside of the United States are also uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our technology or product candidates and could affect the value of such intellectual property. In particular, our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing products that infringe our intellectual property will depend in part on our success in obtaining and enforcing patent claims that cover our technology, inventions and improvements. We cannot guarantee that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications we may file in the future, nor can we be sure that any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our products, the methods of use or manufacture of those products. Moreover, even our issued patents do not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of our products. Patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology space are evolving and involve many risks and uncertainties. For example, third parties may have, or may obtain, blocking patents of which we are currently unaware that could be used to prevent us from developing or commercializing our product candidates and practicing our proprietary technology. Further, defense of infringement claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties or redesign our products. Doing so may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We may also elect to enter into a license agreement to settle litigation or to resolve disputes prior to litigation. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. Should a license to a third-party patent become necessary, we cannot predict whether we would be able to obtain a license, or if a license were available, whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. If such a license is necessary and a license under the applicable patent is unavailable on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed. This scenario could materially adversely affect our business. Even if we obtain a license to third-party intellectual property, we may later decide, or it may later become necessary, to terminate the license. If we do so, we may no longer be free to use the technology protected by the patents no longer under license. Also, if a competitor developed the technology protected by the patents no longer under license, we would not be able to block the competitor’s progress. If the competitor’s product was competitive with ours, then we may suffer economic harm from the competitive product.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its scope, validity or enforceability and our issued patents may be challenged, invalidated, deemed unenforceable or circumvented. These scenarios could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing-related products or could limit the term of patent protection that otherwise may exist for our product candidates. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by enforceable patents. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Moreover, any efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights are likely to be costly and may divert the efforts of our scientific and management personnel. We may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. We may also be subject to ownership disputes in the future arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and employees.

10

In addition, the scope of the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may independently develop similar technologies that are outside the scope of the rights granted under any issued patents. For these reasons, we may face competition with respect to our product candidates. Moreover, because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any particular product candidate can be commercialized, any patent directed to such product may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing the commercial advantage the patent provides.

We generally file a provisional patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, first and then subsequently file a corresponding non-provisional patent application. This process enables us to establish an earlier effective filing date in the subsequently filed non-provisional patent application. To benefit from the earlier effective filing date, we must file a corresponding non-provisional patent application, such as a utility application in the United States or an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, within 12 months of the date of the provisional patent application filing. Based on a PCT filing, we may file national and regional patent applications in the United States or foreign jurisdictions, such as the European Union, China, Japan and possibly others. To date, we have not filed for patent protection in all national and regional jurisdictions where such protection may be available, and we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before a patent is granted. In addition, the patent grant proceeding for each national or regional patent application that we file is an independent proceeding. As a result, it is possible for a patent application to be granted in one jurisdiction and denied in another jurisdiction, and depending on the jurisdiction, the scope of patent protection may vary. As of January 27, 2026, we owned 11 issued U.S. patents and 53 granted foreign patents relating to methods of use and composition of matter of PMV compounds, including rezatapopt, at least 10 pending U.S. patent applications, and at least 30 pending foreign patent applications, each of which relates to methods of use and composition of matter of PMV compounds. The 11 issued U.S. patents are expected to expire between 2037 and 2043, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment or extensions.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, preclinical and clinical testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing. Generally, before a new drug can be marketed, considerable data must be generated, which demonstrates the drug’s quality, safety and efficacy. Such data must then be organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

U.S. Drug Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

•
completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in accordance with FDA’s good laboratory practice requirements and other applicable regulations;

•
submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

•
approval by an independent Institutional Review Board, or IRB, or ethics committee at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated;

•
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practice, or GCP, requirements to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use;

•
submission to the FDA of an new drug application, or NDA, after completion of all pivotal trials;

11

•
determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA to accept the filing for substantive review;

•
satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable;

•
satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the drug is produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity, and of selected clinical investigation sites to assess compliance with GCP requirements; and

•
FDA review and approval of the NDA to permit commercial marketing of the product for particular indications for use in the United States.

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB or ethics committee for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the study until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

•
Phase 1: The product candidate is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition. These studies are designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients.

•
Phase 2: The product candidate is administered to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials.

12

•
Phase 3: The product candidate is administered to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product approval.

In some cases, FDA may require, or sponsors may voluntarily pursue, post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 studies, that are conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, such as with accelerated approval drugs, the FDA may mandate the performance of post-approval clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. In addition, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 1 and Phase 2, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meetings at the end of the Phase 2 trial to discuss Phase 2 clinical trial results and present plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials that they believe will support approval of the new drug.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

While the IND is active and before approval, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

NDA Review and Approval Process

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical and other non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

13

The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing complies with cGMP requirements to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after the application is submitted. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional pivotal Phase 3 trial or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA to address all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Further, FDA’s “real time” release of newly issued Complete Response Letters associated with withdrawn or abandoned applications, if applicable to any of our product candidates, can materially impact our business and competitive advantage.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA with a REMS to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may also require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs.

14

In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric clinical trials for most drugs, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration. Under PREA, original NDAs and supplements must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric clinical trials for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric clinical trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric clinical trials begin. The FDA must send a non-compliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, accelerated approval and priority review, that are intended to expedite the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. For example, new drugs are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life- threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. The sponsor of a Fast Track product has opportunities for frequent interactions with the review team during product development and, once a NDA is submitted, the product may be eligible for priority review. With regard to a Fast Track product, the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a Fast Track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation. A product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months for review of new molecular entity NDAs under its current PDUFA review goals.

In addition, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug products intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials as a condition for accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. The Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act made several changes to the FDA’s authorities and its regulatory framework, including, among other changes, reforms to the accelerated approval pathway, such as requiring the FDA to specify conditions for post-approval study requirements and setting forth procedures for the FDA to withdraw a product on an expedited basis for non-compliance with post-approval requirements.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act established a category of drugs referred to as “breakthrough therapies” that may be eligible to receive breakthrough therapy designation. A sponsor may seek FDA designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the Fast Track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. The breakthrough therapy designation is a distinct status from both accelerated

15

approval and priority review, which can also be granted to the same drug if relevant criteria are met. If a product is designated as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA will work to expedite the development and review of such drug.

Fast Track designation, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We may explore some of these opportunities for our product candidates as appropriate.

In 2025, FDA initiated the Commissioner's National Priority Voucher (CNPV) pilot program, which provides accelerated review and approval of product candidates that address one of the U.S. national health priorities, such as onshoring drug development/manufacturing to strengthen U.S. domestic capacity, large unmet medical needs, and innovative breakthrough therapies that fundamentally change disease management. Vouchers granted by the CNPV pilot program are nontransferable, can accelerate approval to 1-2 months, and provide enhanced interactions with the FDA review team and agency leadership.

Post-approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There are also continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements, which impose certain production, manufacturing, procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

•
restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;

•
fines, warning letters or untitled letters;

•
clinical holds on clinical studies;

•
refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;

•
product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products;

•
consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment or exclusion from federal healthcare programs;

•
mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information;

16

•
the issuance of safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases and other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product; or

•
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA and other regulatory agencies have also required that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labelling.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation, or ODD, to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with either a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater of than 200,000 individuals in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States of that drug or biologic. ODD must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants ODD, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA.

If a product that has received ODD and subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular active ingredient for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA, to market the same biologic for the same indication for seven years from the approval of the NDA, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if the FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug or biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biologic for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of ODD are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the NDA application user fee.

A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received ODD. In addition, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

In Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra, 14 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2021), the court disagreed with the FDA’s longstanding position that the orphan drug exclusivity only applies to the approved use or indication within an

17

eligible disease. On January 24, 2023, the FDA published a notice in the Federal Register to clarify that while the agency complies with the court’s order in Catalyst, FDA intends to continue to apply its longstanding interpretation of the regulations to matters outside of the scope of the Catalyst order – that is, the agency will continue tying the scope of orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which a drug is approved, which permits other sponsors to obtain approval of a drug for new uses or indications within the same orphan designated disease or condition that have not yet been approved. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026, signed into law in February 2026, codified this longstanding FDA interpretation of the Orphan Drug Act, allowing the FDA to approve multiple versions of the same orphan drug for different subindications and subpopulations.

Marketing Exclusivity

Market exclusivity provisions authorized under the FDCA can delay the submission and approval of certain marketing applications for products containing the same active ingredient. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve or even accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2) NDA, by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder.

The FDCA alternatively provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from accepting ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs referencing the approved application for review. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to any preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of marketing exclusivity available in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity provides for an additional six months of marketing exclusivity attached to another period of exclusivity if a sponsor conducts clinical trials in children in response to a written request from the FDA. The issuance of a written request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described clinical trials. In addition, orphan drug exclusivity, as described above, may offer a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, except in certain circumstances.

In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, which gives deference to regulatory agencies’ statutory interpretations in litigation against federal government agencies, such as the FDA, where the law is ambiguous. This landmark Supreme Court decision may invite various stakeholders to bring lawsuits against the FDA to challenge longstanding decisions and policies, which could lead to uncertainties in the industry. Further, changes in the leadership of the FDA and other federal agencies under the current administration may lead to new policies, changes in the regulations, or disruptions to the operations of federal agencies, any of which may impact our clinical development plans.

18

Other Healthcare Laws

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are subject to additional healthcare fraud and abuse laws, regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation, U.S. federal anti-kickback, false claims, civil monetary penalty, consumer fraud, pricing reporting, data privacy and security and physician payment transparency laws and regulations as well as similar foreign laws in the jurisdictions outside the U.S. Similar state and local laws and regulations may also restrict business practices in the pharmaceutical industry, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers or by patients themselves; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws and regulations that require drug manufacturers to file reports relating to pricing and marketing information; state and local laws which require tracking gifts and other remuneration and transfer of value provided to physicians, other healthcare providers and entities; state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and local laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, thus complicating compliance efforts.

The risk of being found in violation of these or other laws and regulations is increased by the fact that many have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts and their provisions are open to various interpretations. These laws and regulations are subject to change, which can increase the resources needed for compliance and delay drug approval or commercialization. Any action brought against us for violations of these laws or regulations, even successfully defended, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Also, we may be subject to private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers on behalf of the federal or state governments. Violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply may result in penalties, including, without limitation, significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs and imprisonment.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any pharmaceutical product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any newly approved product. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular product does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. As a result, the coverage determination process can require manufacturers to provide scientific, cost-effectiveness and clinical support for the use of a product to each payor separately and can be a time-consuming process, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself or the treatment or procedure in which the product is used may not be available, which may impact physician utilization. In addition, companion diagnostic tests that are used with applicable pharmaceutical products require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical products, will apply to companion diagnostics.

Moreover, third-party payors are increasingly reducing coverage and reimbursement for pharmaceutical products and related services. The U.S. government and state legislatures have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for

19

substitution of generic products. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical products, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product. Furthermore, there is no assurance that a product will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that an adequate level of reimbursement will be established even if coverage is available or that the third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect the ability for manufacturers to sell products profitably. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product.

In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product, or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. Pharmaceutical products may face competition from lower-priced products in foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products and may also compete with imported foreign products.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system. In March 2010, the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, was signed into law, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States. By way of example, the ACA increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell certain “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs, implemented a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; creates a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, on June 17, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how such challenges and the healthcare reform measures under the current administration will impact the ACA and our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, effective April 1, 2013, which will remain in effect through 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken.

Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and

20

proposed and enacted legislation designed, among other things, to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Presidential executive orders, Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. For example, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 eliminated the statutory cap on Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates that manufacturers pay to state Medicaid programs. Elimination of this cap may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay more in rebates than it receives on the sale of approved products, which could have a material impact on our business. In August 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which includes prescription drug provisions that have significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry and Medicare beneficiaries, including allowing the federal government to negotiate a maximum fair price for certain high-priced single source Medicare drugs, imposing penalties and excise tax for manufacturers that fail to comply with the drug price negotiation requirements, requiring inflation rebates for all Medicare Part B and Part D drugs, with limited exceptions, if their drug prices increase faster than inflation, and redesigning Medicare Part D to reduce out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for beneficiaries, among other changes. Only high-expenditure single-source drugs that have been approved for at least 7 years (11 years for single-source biologics) can qualify for negotiation, with the negotiated price taking effect two years after the selection year. For 2026, the first year in which negotiated prices become effective, CMS selected 10 high-cost Medicare Part D drugs in 2023, negotiations began in 2024, and the negotiated maximum fair price for each drug has been announced. CMS has selected 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs for negotiated maximum fair pricing in 2027. For 2028, up to an additional 15 drugs, which may be covered under either Medicare Part B or Part D, will be selected, and for 2029 and subsequent years, up to 20 additional Part B or Part D drugs will be selected. Various industry stakeholders, including certain pharmaceutical companies and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, have initiated lawsuits against the federal government asserting that the price negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act are unconstitutional. Further, the current administration has issued executive orders focused on decreasing prescription drug prices, including directing the Secretary of HHS to establish a mechanism through

which American patients can buy drugs directly from manufacturers who sell at a most-favored-nation price and directing the U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Commerce to take action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in practices that purposefully and unfairly undercut market prices and drive price hikes in the U.S. In November 2025, CMS announced a voluntary initiative called the GENEROUS Model (GENErating cost Reductions fOr U.S. Medicaid Model) to introduce the option of most-favored-nation pricing to the Medicaid program, whereby a drug manufacturer may voluntarily offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs for a manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. Government agreements with pharmaceutical companies and other measures that use most-favored-nation pricing targets for prescription drugs or that increase generic and biosimilar drug entry sooner than expected can have a material adverse effect on our industry, ability to set adequate pricing for new drugs to recover R&D costs, ability to attract potential investors and potential buyers in the future, or the pricing of our approved product in the U.S. and in foreign countries. The impact of judicial challenges and future government reform measures on us and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole is unclear.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs.

FDA Approval and Regulation of Companion Diagnostics

We expect that our product candidates may require use of a diagnostic to identify appropriate patient populations for our products. These diagnostics, often referred to as companion diagnostics, are medical devices, often in vitro devices, which provide information that is essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding drug. In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and

21

promotion, sales and distribution, export and import and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, diagnostic tests require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are premarket notification, also called 510(k) clearance (or decision to grant a De Novo classification request if there is no predicate device), and premarket approval, or PMA approval. In January 2024, FDA announced its plans to reclassify certain high-risk of in vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics, as Class II devices. In 2025, FDA issued a proposed rule to reclassify certain class III nucleic acid-based test systems indicated for use with a corresponding approved oncology therapeutic product from class III (premarket approval) into class II (special controls), subject to premarket notification. As such, to the extent we or our collaborators develop a companion diagnostic, it may be regulated as a Class II or Class III medical device, depending on its intended use and technical characteristics, among other factors.

510(k) clearance process

To obtain 510(k) clearance, a pre-market notification is submitted to the FDA demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device or a device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 for which the FDA has not yet required the submission of a PMA application. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance process may take three to 12 months from the date the application is submitted and filed with the FDA, but may take longer if FDA requests additional information, among other reasons. In some cases, the FDA may require clinical data to support substantial equivalence. In reviewing a pre-market notification submission, the FDA may request additional information, which may significantly prolong the review process. Notwithstanding compliance with all these requirements, clearance is never assured.

After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any subsequent modification of the device that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or require a PMA. In addition, the FDA may make substantial changes to industry requirements, including which devices are eligible for 510(k) clearance, which may significantly affect the process.

De novo classification process

If a new medical device does not qualify for the 510(k) pre-market notification process because no predicate device to which it is substantially equivalent can be identified, the device is automatically classified into Class III. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established a different route to market for low to moderate risk medical devices that are automatically placed into Class III due to the absence of a predicate device, called the “Request for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation,” or the de novo classification process. This process allows a manufacturer whose novel device is automatically classified into Class III to request down-classification of its medical device into Class I or Class II on the basis that the device presents low or moderate risk, rather than requiring the submission and approval of a PMA. If the manufacturer seeks reclassification into Class II, the manufacturer must include a draft proposal for special controls that are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the medical device. The FDA may reject the reclassification petition if it identifies a legally marketed predicate device that would be appropriate for a 510(k) or determines that the device is not low to moderate risk and requires PMA or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls cannot be developed.

Obtaining FDA marketing authorization, de novo down-classification, or approval for medical devices is expensive and uncertain, and may take several years, and generally requires significant scientific and clinical data.

PMA process

The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the applicant must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee. In addition, PMAs for certain devices must generally include the results from extensive preclinical and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the device for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. In particular, for a diagnostic, a PMA application typically requires data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of the PMA

22

review, the FDA will typically inspect the manufacturer’s facilities for compliance with the Quality Management System Regulation, or QMSR, which went into effect in February 2026, replacing the former Quality System Regulation, and imposes elaborate testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance requirements.

PMA approval is not guaranteed, and the FDA may ultimately respond to a PMA submission with a not approvable determination based on deficiencies in the application and require additional clinical trial or other data that may be expensive and time-consuming to generate and that can substantially delay approval. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA application is favorable, the FDA typically issues an approvable letter requiring the applicant’s agreement to specific conditions, such as changes in labeling, or specific additional information, such as submission of final labeling, in order to secure final approval of the PMA. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. The FDA may also determine that additional clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA approval may be delayed for several months or years while the trials are conducted and then the data submitted in an amendment to the PMA. If the FDA concludes that the applicable criteria have been met, the FDA will issue a PMA for the approved indications, which can be more limited than those originally sought by the applicant. The PMA can include post-approval conditions that the FDA believes necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards are not maintained, or problems are identified following initial marketing.

In August 2014, the FDA issued final guidance clarifying the requirements that will apply to approval of therapeutic products and in vitro companion diagnostics. According to the guidance, if FDA determines that a companion diagnostic device is essential to the safe and effective use of a novel therapeutic product or indication, FDA generally will not approve the therapeutic product or new therapeutic product indication if the companion diagnostic device is not approved or cleared for that indication at the same time. The review of in vitro companion diagnostics in conjunction with the review of our therapeutic treatments for cancer will, therefore, likely involve coordination of review by the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health Office of In Vitro Diagnostics. The guidance also explains that a companion diagnostic device used to make treatment decisions in clinical trials of a drug generally will be considered an investigational device, unless it is employed for an intended use for which the device is already approved or cleared. If used to make critical treatment decisions, such as patient selection, the diagnostic device generally will be considered a significant risk device under the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE, regulations. Thus, the sponsor of the diagnostic device will be required to comply with the IDE regulations. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a drug are to be studied together to support their respective approvals, both products can be studied in the same investigational study, if the study meets both the requirements of the IDE regulations and the IND regulations. The guidance provides that depending on the details of the study plan and subjects, a sponsor may seek to submit an IND alone, or both an IND and an IDE. After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements. Medical devices may be marketed only for the uses and indications for which they are cleared or approved. Device manufacturers must also establish registration and device listings with the FDA. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing processes and those of its suppliers are required to comply with the applicable portions of the QMSR, which cover the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging and shipping of medical devices. Domestic facility records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. The FDA also may inspect foreign facilities that export products to the United States.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of March 6, 2026, we had 54 full-time employees, including 18 employees with Ph.D., M.D. or Pharm.D. degrees. Of these full-time employees, 41 employees are engaged in research and development activities.

23

None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good. Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing, and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purposes of our equity and cash incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward personnel though the granting of stock-based and cash-based compensation awards, to increase stockholder value and our success by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Initiatives

As a clinical-stage precision oncology company, we are rooted in our mission to fundamentally disrupt the course of cancer for patients with p53 gene mutations and other p53-related cancers. We believe integrating responsible environmental, social, and governance principles into our corporate strategy will drive sustainable value creation for our shareholders, employees, patients, and caregivers over the long term. We have formed an internal ESG Working Group with cross-functional senior leadership that meets periodically, with oversight by the nominating and corporate governance committee of our board of directors. Our ESG Working Group oversees our sustainability efforts, and we have documented our initiatives in our 2024 ESG Highlights Report, which is available on our website at ir.pmvpharma.com. The content provided in our 2024 ESG Highlights Report or accessible through our website is not incorporated by reference as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in March 2013 under the name “PJ Pharmaceuticals, Inc.” In July 2013, we changed our name to “PMV Pharmaceuticals, Inc.” Our principal executive offices are located at 400 Alexander Park Drive, Suite 301, Princeton, New Jersey 08540. Our telephone number is (609) 642-6670. Our website address is www.pmvpharma.com. Information contained on, or that can be accessible through, our website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the inclusion of our website address in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is an inactive textual reference only.

We use the name “PMV Pharma,” the “PMV Pharma” logo and other marks as unregistered trademarks in the United States and other countries. This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains references to our trademarks and service marks and to those belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report, including logos, artwork and other visual displays, may appear without the ® or TM symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate in any way that we or their owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable owner to these trademarks and trade names. We do not intend our use or display of other entities’ trade names, trademarks or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other entity.

Available Information

Our Internet address is www.pmvpharma.com. We will file or furnish periodic reports and amendments thereto, including our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K (and amendments to those reports), proxy and information statements and other information filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statement, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically, which may be accessed through the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Our reports, amendments thereto, proxy statements and other information are also made available, free of charge, on our investor relations website at ir.pmvpharma.com as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file or furnish such information with the SEC. The information contained on the websites referenced in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is not incorporated by reference into this filing. Further, our references to website URLs are intended to be inactive textual references only. All statements made in any of our securities filings, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.

24